Brian Kelly

Robert, I believe that LBJ was for sure a part of the run-up to the assassination, not just a conspirator after the fact. So I agree with you there. His calculated misdirections, whether to Walter Cronkite "off the record" is classic LBJ manipulation. But putting Dulles exclusively in the cover-up only, I just don't see how or why you would lean that way. No way (that I can see) Dulles was ONLY a part of the cover-up. He was Yoda to all of the lower/mid-level CIA operatives and guys on the ground (for example EH Hunt/David Morales) even to the higher-tier guys, Pentagon types a la Lansdale. Whoever initially broached the idea of the coup, whether it was LBJ or LeMay or Lemnitzer, whoever it was, they're going to consult with Dulles at some point. If it wasn't Dulles himself, of course, who first brought up the idea. The coup/assassination itself is black ops of the highest order and Dulles was THE spymaster. I don't care if Dulles was on "the farm" or not, I believe he was a key to this thing (IMHO). I think it's very possible that LBJ and Dulles were simpatico from the summer/fall of 1963 (when dissent against JFK from the top echelons of power was at its peak) thru Nov 22nd. They had mutual interests and motivations. And they are not mutually exclusive, in terms of the conspiracy. In my mind they are both involved pre-assassination, and quite obviously in the aftermath.

I was not aware that Litwin was a member of the forum. So mea culpa on that one. Moving on… 🤓

To me it looks like this forum is borderline septic with trolls. I won’t name names of course, but it seems to me there are now SEVERAL turds in this punch bowl. I’m mostly a reader and not so much a poster but the quality of discourse on here is just…phew. It’s getting near impossible to start a good thread and not have it ruined by some litwin. I mean nitwit.

Fred litwin has a podcast. Awesome. Thanks for posting Gerry can’t wait to check it out I’m sure its amazing

So we all know that David Ferrie and Eladio del Valle died (were murdered) on the same day. But there was another 'two deaths in one day event'. I know Charles Nicoletti was a part of the James Files story, HOWEVER, he was a hitman under Giancana for the Chicago mob. Unless someone can correct me here if I'm mistaken, Nicoletti was subpoenaed for the HSCA. But then he was murdered before he could give testimony. On the same day as George de Mohrenschildt's "suicide". Just throwing that out there if we're gonna talk about coincidences or fake ones thereof...

This is the JFKA and we all have our "theories", which is what we are all doing here in the first place in case anyone forgot. 😬 So for me when it comes to Lansdale, I say yes he was involved. I would belly up to the poker table right now and throw some scratch down on that bet. He's in the same boat with LeMay for me, and I would bet even more money on Gen. LeMay being part of the assassination. I mean after all, LeMay gave no pause on pressuring JFK to launch nukes against Russia (even though it was less than 20 years since Hiroshima/Nagasaki). Compared to nuclear war, what is a coup against the sitting president who you deem to be an existential threat?

JFK Jr. didn’t strike me as the kind of person who could be told what to do by anyone. He seemed to be a free spirit, but one with integrity. He was a Kennedy for sure but he had his mother’s back first and foremost. Anywho, if he decided he was going to break the Kennedy hard line of ‘no comment’ on assassinations, that would not surprise me in the least. And it doubly wouldn’t surprise me if he really wanted to know the circumstances of his father’s murder. Aka taking action in some form. I’m sure that would extend to to his uncle’s murder as well.

I have often wondered if John Jr. ever wanted to do some investigating/digging of his own, or whether he planned to use his name and influence to lobby for release of the files at some point. If I remember correctly he was cordial with Oliver Stone and met with him when he had his magazine, when Stone was being attacked by the media. Didn't he publish an article in "George" about the assassination or about conspiracies? The author of "America's Reluctant Prince" Steven Gillon wrote the book about his friend JFK Jr. Gillon is a historian and he met John at Brown 18 years before his death in 1999. This is an interesting piece from the article that I linked below: Once, however, Gillon remembers John addressing the topic sometime in the early '90s. "He made a cryptic comment that 'Bobby knew everything,' " Gillon says, referring to Robert Kennedy, the president's brother and his attorney general. "It made me think JFK's brother knew things the public and maybe the Warren Commission did not." "As a historian I should have followed up, but it was a sensitive topic," Gillon says. "If he wanted to offer more information he could, but I knew it hurt him and he didn't want to talk about it." https://people.com/politics/how-jfk-jr-coped-kennedy-assassination-rfk-knew/

That’s a great idea Keyvan. Think about the interview with William Harvey’s widow for example. David Morale’s friend. David Atlee Phillips nephew was it? On and on. It’s one of the only avenues we have 61 years after the fact…

There are so many bulletpoints I would like to add to this thread that I have a popsicle headache. But here are a few things, all w the caveat IMHO: 1. No doubt the cases are connected. Why go to the trouble of assassinating a president if youre only going to let the younger brother step in 5 years later. A younger brother with the power to investigate the original assassination by the way. It seems any character in the JFK story who hated JFK (most famously LBJ and Hoover) hated RFK more. Nixon said as much about LBJs feelings on the brothers. 2. the Walter Sheridan/Garrison matter always bothered me since I learned of it, maybe from even before reading “Brothers” by Talbot? I dont remember exactly, but Garrison had an endless supply of infiltrators to his investigation without worrying about Sheridan. I love RFK and I understand he wanted his own crack at the case when he became president, but it is disappointing in that aspect. 3. Theoretically if you can program Sirhan and pull it off (the distraction of pulling out a gun and firing), this is plausible deniability baked into the act. It is an alibi unto itself, it strains credulity. Ever try to explain the story of Sirhan to someone who is unfamiliar? They look at you like you are nuts. It is a perfect plan bc nobody will believe its possible. 4. Thane Cesar moving to Phillipines is convenient isnt it? Sure his daughter lived there or whatever his story was, but Phillipines has no extradition policy to the US. I dont buy it, as Costner says in JFK. 5. Anyone doubting if there was an ulterior motive/blatant intimidation of withesses/destruction of evidence in RFK investigation, please have a listen to LAPD officer Hernandez questioning of Sandra Serrano on youtube. This guy Hernandez couldnt have been more obvious, its tough to listen to. What a POS. 6. Israel had nothing to do with either assassination. This is another waste of time scenario, aka it is misdirection. Please with that nonsense.

God bless Cyril Wecht! I think he was such an important ally to the truth in the JFKA. He was outspoken about the case (when he did not have to be) and he brought a certain gravitas and scientific legitimacy to the argument for conspiracy. This was obviously a controversial view (or even more controversial than today) in the mainstream media and the press, but he went against the grain. This is not to mention what it could mean for his career as a physician. Also not sure if this was mentioned before, but I was pleasantly surprised when I saw him portrayed in the movie "Concussion" by Albert Brooks since he was the teacher and mentor of Dr. Omalu, the man who bravely brought the NFL's concussion issue to light. What an amazing life Dr. Wecht led and he deserves plenty of praise!

For that scene the female journalist explained it all in the doc (I thought in a clear and plausible way). She was describing the conversation she had with this character Nichols and how he showed her diff versions of the Zapruder film for some reason. I believe she thought both versions were manipulated by this guy Nichols if I remember correctly. Basically Nichols was trying to pull something on her either to cover his ass later, or to test her, or for some other reason born of his self-interest. I never took from that scene that the journalist was claiming there were real doctored versions of the Z film being screened for her, or that the documentary was implying that different versions of the Z film are out there and that spooks can check them out of the Blockbuster spy library in the basement of the CIA. Just that this guy Nichols was pulling a fast one on the journalist and he manipulated the whole situation. And she apparently navigated it pretty well.

Totally agree. Not sure how anyone buys the Paine’s BS, especially when it comes from Ruth. Just watching her interviews and she comes off as disingenuous to me (amongst other things). I wonder what Marina’s honest opinion about Ruth would be if you asked her today.

Paul, I think this is a very interesting question. With the games Oswald was playing that summer of 1963, he must have had a difficult time keeping his bearings. He was clearly in over his head, and BY THE WAY- he was only 23 years old. In TMWKTM, Dick Russell interviewed Col. William Bishop (a very interesting character in his own right) and Bishop stated that he knew (or knew of) Nagell, Angel and Leopoldo. Bc of what Nagell told Russell, Russell asked Bishop if perhaps Ang/Leo convinced Oswald that they were working for Cuban G2 intelligence. This was his response: "I don't know that for a fact, but it's a good possibility. At that point, it would have been relatively simple if Angel and Leopoldo dealt with Oswald. 'How can you prove you're Cuban intelligence? Do you know so-and-so?' Yea, it's possible it was a set-up deal. I've done it myself. They could have been double agents and convinced Oswald, falsely, that they were Cuban intelligence or associated with it. I'll tell you one damn thing, whoever set up that poor son of a bitch did a first-class job." At first for me this seemed hard to conceive- how could Oswald be fooled in this way? Subconsciously however, Oswald's dealings with Ang/Leo the way they were portrayed in "JFK" were playing in my mind, where all three of them were consorting with Bannister, Ferrie and Shaw and other right wing characters in the same room. BUT if Ang/Leo were never accompanied by other obvious anti-Castro figures in their dealings with Oswald, maybe they were able to convince him that they were G2. And then perhaps that is how they were able to manipulate Oswald, of course with the ultimate goal of painting him as pro-Castro/someone who had shady dealings with agents of Russia and Cuba.

David- great to hear from you. I think I have googled every one of those names at one point or another. Murgado, for example, only has that one grainy picture of him as an older gentleman on Spartucus Educational. Hard to tell anything from that picture. When it comes to Angel/Leopoldo it is nice to have some pictures to look at. Anywho, here's a question for you- have you ever considered that one of the Cubans suspected of being either Angel or Leopoldo is someone more well-known to the JFKA community in terms of names? Someone maybe a little more in plain sight? Joe- I totally agree, I don't know what it is exactly, but it is compelling. The direct ties to Oswald, the aliases or "war names", the WC members seeing it as problematic to their lone-nut conclusion, and investigators such as Fonzi and Meagher and many many others realizing the importance of the story. I think it all adds to the interest. So good.